New Hampshire: Sovereignty over Marriage

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) – New Hampshire on Wednesday became the sixth U.S. state to authorize gay marriage, deepening a New England niche for same-sex weddings and the spending that comes with them.

New Hampshire’s Democratic-controlled House of Representatives endorsed gay marriage in a 198-176 vote, hours after the state Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines, making the state the fourth this year to back gay marriage in the United States.

Governor John Lynch, a Democrat, signed the bill, which goes into effect on January 1.

“Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect, under New Hampshire law,” Lynch said in a statement.

The law also recognizes out-of-state gay marriages and civil unions, which are legal in just a handful of U.S. states including New Hampshire. Same-sex couples who have civil unions in New Hampshire will automatically be married January 1, 2011.

Last month, the New Hampshire House rejected a similar bill. But Senate and House members met last week to approve new language giving clergy and religious institutions opposed to gay marriage greater protections, including the legal right to decline to marry same-sex couples.

Opponents, mostly religious conservatives, see gay marriage as a threat to the “traditional family” that is ordained by God and the foundation of civilization. Supporters often compare it to the path blazed by the civil rights movement.

PROTECTING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

New Hampshire’s bill says religious organizations, associations or societies will have “exclusive control” over their religious “doctrines, teachings and beliefs”.

Organizations affiliated with religious groups that operate for charitable or educational purposes can deny marriage services to gay individuals, it adds.

“The (changes) strike the appropriate balance between two important values we believe New Hampshire residents support: equal rights for all and the rights to religious freedom,” said state Senator Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat.

Senate Republicans said the amendment did little to change a bill they oppose. Republican state Senator Sheila Roberge said Democrats should support Republican calls for a referendum so voters can decide the issue.

Only a few countries, mostly European nations, allow gay marriage. Forty-two U.S. states explicitly prohibit same-sex marriage, including 29 with constitutional amendments.

Last week, California’s supreme court backed a ban on gay marriage by upholding a voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In stark contrast, gay-marriage laws are expanding swiftly on the East Coast, especially in New England where Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay people to marry five years ago.

13 thoughts on “New Hampshire: Sovereignty over Marriage”

Whether you support this particular issue or not, I think people across the political spectrum can see this as a victory for decentralization. The 10th Amendment makes it quite clear that the most important social issues should be handled on a state level, or by the people themselves.

Like Peter Schiff has said so clearly, I wish this country would just let California fail. These politicians will never, ever learn responsibility if the rest of the country is forced to pay for their reckless spending habits. What a mess.

One aspect of marriage license many overlook is that its an application process requiring one’s signature to participate in a commercial privilege. In law,license is permission to do that which would otherwise be deemed illegal[i.e. driver license,etc.]. Common law marriage is automatically recognized within State statutes re: established time of cohabitation. Marriage license is actually a 3 party 14th Ammendment contract. Husband,wife,and,State govt. State connection is noticed in commencement speech by priest,judge,captain,or other,with the phrase ” By the power vested in me by the State of……”. Point being, men and women shouldn’t be getting marriage licenses. License is the proper remedy for gay people. Not gay,or proponent thereof, its the historical origin of documentation people never investigate which in the end leads to expansionary govt. We’re taught its custom and practice from what past generations beleived was good or necessary. Effect is being neck deep in 14th Ammendment contracts of voluntary servitude compelling specific performance. Marriage license,being one,makes everything which emanates from the marital relationship effectively connected to govt. State govt. asserts sovereignty over the relationship as controlling party of the 3 party contract. Example of people empowering govt. without their knowledge is when Health and Social Services come like a thief in the night taking one’s baby on allegation of child abuse. They don’t need a warrant,judge’s signature,or to produce any document. They do so as formality,but are not required to. Whats in lieau of birth certificate is a family bible or affidavit with 2 witnesses as to when,where, and to whom baby was born. True source and authority comes from the parents signatures upon the marriage license and mother’s signature upon the birth certificate. One’s signature empowers the compelling govt. interest to remove the baby. Bottom line, State and Federal 14th Ammendment documentation scheme is all by application. Meaning oneself is the moving party moving govt. into contractual relationship with oneself. Nothing is mandatory except for Title 8 U.S.Code Aliens. Thus one generation follows the past generation into perpetual signature empowerment evidencing will,intent,consent of the governed. Govt. is using element of substance authority within one’s own signature against oneself.

Gay Marriage isn’t for me, but anytime States can reclaim their rights back, I’ll support it… if people have a hard time living among gays, I’m sure there will be states that don’t allow it and a person can move there. It would be nice to see states take on some individualistic traits…

By the way, Michael, I realize I’m late to the party’n’all, but what, in your opinion, makes these instances of states allowing gay “marriage” more significant than the 34 or 35 other instances of states denying it … insofar as it’s a “victory for decentralization?”